Facts
As the case presents, the facts are noted as follow: Richard is a University student, financially struggled and lives with in his family house. He makes an arrangement with his father that he will mow the front and back yard of the property every week as well as cleaning the garden exchange for $200 per week as his allowance paid by his father. The property is about 1 hectare and it takes at least half a day to mow the lawn. His father used pay $ 350 weekly for having a garden contractor to do this job, mowing and tidying. After four weeks, Richard holds his end of bargain, but his father change his mind about the payment. The father refuse to pay anything to Richard and claims that Richard should not get paid to take the obligation …show more content…
Agreements between family members, relatives or friends are generally classified as domestic agreement which presumed without the intention of creating legal relationship between the parties entre in unless there are specific circumstances applied to the agreements indicate the intention of legally binding existing.
There are various cases held that domestic and social agreement are not legally bound. The two parties of the case Balfour v Balfour (1919) 2 K.B. 571 are husband and wife. This case sets a very important principle that domestic agreements are presumed with no intention of creating legal relations. In the matter of Jones v Padvattan (1969) 2 AII ER 616, the court held there was no intention legally binding the agreement between parent and child, but only good faith and promises.
However, the presumption is not rebuttable. In the case Wakeling v Ripley (1951) 51 SR (NSW) 183, Ripley convinced his sister, Wakeling to move to Australia with her husband and promised them a living as well as an inheritance after his death. He cut them off after the relationship with the couple broke. Wakeling sued for breach of contract. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that there must be a legal intention in the agreement between two parties since there were an enforceable provision of Ripely’s assurance and will and a significant financial consequence involved because of the breach of
As the case presents, the facts are noted as follow: Richard is a University student, financially struggled and lives with in his family house. He makes an arrangement with his father that he will mow the front and back yard of the property every week as well as cleaning the garden exchange for $200 per week as his allowance paid by his father. The property is about 1 hectare and it takes at least half a day to mow the lawn. His father used pay $ 350 weekly for having a garden contractor to do this job, mowing and tidying. After four weeks, Richard holds his end of bargain, but his father change his mind about the payment. The father refuse to pay anything to Richard and claims that Richard should not get paid to take the obligation …show more content…
Agreements between family members, relatives or friends are generally classified as domestic agreement which presumed without the intention of creating legal relationship between the parties entre in unless there are specific circumstances applied to the agreements indicate the intention of legally binding existing.
There are various cases held that domestic and social agreement are not legally bound. The two parties of the case Balfour v Balfour (1919) 2 K.B. 571 are husband and wife. This case sets a very important principle that domestic agreements are presumed with no intention of creating legal relations. In the matter of Jones v Padvattan (1969) 2 AII ER 616, the court held there was no intention legally binding the agreement between parent and child, but only good faith and promises.
However, the presumption is not rebuttable. In the case Wakeling v Ripley (1951) 51 SR (NSW) 183, Ripley convinced his sister, Wakeling to move to Australia with her husband and promised them a living as well as an inheritance after his death. He cut them off after the relationship with the couple broke. Wakeling sued for breach of contract. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that there must be a legal intention in the agreement between two parties since there were an enforceable provision of Ripely’s assurance and will and a significant financial consequence involved because of the breach of